Bigmomma29
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2014
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 1
I think it's funny sometimes. Because we all know what happens when we assume what someone is saying does to them and the people and the ones that spread it.
Totally agree. I also in :moo: that it is also the way to drive the herd to a frantic frenzy. And they know it does, which is the whole purpose. Which does not make sense to me if they want help, yet they create a mass outcry and nothing gets accomplished.:facepalm:
Totally agree. I also in :moo: that it is also the way to drive the herd to a frantic frenzy. And they know it does, which is the whole purpose. Which does not make sense to me if they want help, yet they create a mass outcry and nothing gets accomplished.:facepalm:
That pretty much sums up what is happening IMO. It's like them saying the new ping area was never searched. According to the Observer it was searched on Jan 28th I believe.
They are saying landowners are not allowing a search and everything I've read said that landowners have been not only allowing searches but have helped with them. ALLOWING LL and her army to search is very different IMO and if landowners won't allow that I can't say that I blame them.
And as far as LE not allowing a legitimate SAR group to come search I say show me the proof. I'm not buying that one without some proof.
So if they want to sling words and make accusations I sure hope they have their facts straight. I've seen the mob mentality come out in lots of MP cases and IMO there are those out there that like to pretend to be helpful but thrive on the drama and finger pointing. I guess it makes them feel important or something.
None of this is helping to find B from what I can see.
Which in turn makes me think about throwing people off Had to throw that out there. MOO.
That is why I try really hard to stick to the facts as much as possible. We can speculate about this possibility or that, but in the end I want facts. Since I know that LL has been less than honest I am leery about treating what she says as fact. There is a whole lot of gossip and lies being spread and this is helping find Brandon how?
Have we ever gotten the new timeline CC promised last week?
I'm just asking because I was reading an old post from BP form September and she commented that the dispatcher told LL that BL made TWO 911 calls that night/morning.
I know we were to disregard the PI's timelines and it was rumor, but if there were two calls made by BL, then there are two different times that BL. Called and again that could change a lot of theories.
Here on the timeline dated 8/10/13. Misty the dispatcher says there were TWO calls MADE by BL.
https://www.facebook.com/helpfindbrandonlawson/posts/148087428733673
Exactly. And if we ask any questions, well its none of our business. Yes, it is. because BL is a missing person and to find him the questions have to be asked and whether people like it or not. A missing person/victim is everyone's business unless they left on their own and do not want to be found. In that case all they have to do is let LE know and everything stops. All the drama does is prevent the MP from being found. If they need attention that bad then they have some a serious condition that requires therapy.
bbm
I think most MPs could do this, but maybe not those who have a tea and crumpets appt with the law. LE might still want to keep their reservation. (why am I talking like this? Now I want a cup of chamomile. :floorlaugh
Well, it is lunchtime Yum, I have a crumpet recipe I have been wanting to make, you bring the tea and I shall bring the crumpets:floorlaugh:
Busy reading/copying/pasting from here? :floorlaugh: I would think putting out a corrected timeline might be a little more important but hey that's just my thinking.
I want to clarify a statement I made regarding filing head of household on ones tax return. I've seen comments such as "now LL is being accused of tax fraud". If that was in response to MY posts about the subject I want to make it clear that I said IF SHE FILED HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD it would be tax fraud. I never said she did, because I have never seen her tax returns. I was merely stating that someone who is COMMON LAW MARRIED is not eligible for HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD filing status and IF one did file that way it would be tax fraud. I even posted the tax laws regarding this.
My entire point was that someone cannot have it both ways. One cannot claim to be common law married then file head of household on their taxes. They either are common law married or they are not.
This is absolutely not directed at anyone here actively participating in this thread.
Of course, I saved it and sent it to you! I knew you would ask! Lol :wink:
Well why didn't I get a copy. Geez lol
Did you see it in the comments? Let me know.